About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 4
CNNW 2
CSPAN 2
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, which is also the problem of pakistan, becomes a regional problem in which the country's in the region have a stake in solving and are not -- there's a reasonable chance that can be pulled off. >> dr. brzezinski, you mentioned pakistan. the focus of policy leaders. turning away from afghanistan, we got reports the journalist who was killed by the isi inside pakistan further out is complicating our relationship with that group. we announced going in to kill osama bin laden. how do we manage this relationship that's been difficult to manage for as far as the eye can see? >> well, first of all, we have to recognize we are dealing here with two sifrl conflicts. one in afghanistan and the one in pakistan. there's a conflict in pakistan. there isn't a foreign intervention trying to resolve it. it is a great internal conflict. what we are seeing in pakistan is a series of contradictory policies, contradictory engagements and contradictory engagements. the army wants to preserve a stable pakistan that is assured of security and sees the united states as a component of the success in that quest
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
pakistan, as we said on the show a number of times. how do we deal with pakistan and at the same time, get out of afghanistan except in terms of special forces or drones to represent our interest and chase down terrorists? meanwhile, you have the greatest tender box in the world, to save a nuclear pakistan with more than 100, probably twice as many with nuclear warheads that can fall into the hands of terrorists. >> the bottom line is, how do we deal with it? >> it's always pakistan is a basket case, a nuclear basket case. stay in afghanistan. >> you don't. you don't. >> it's not going to work. that is washington's argument, mike barnicle. pakistan is stabilized. we have to keep having american troops killed in afghanistan. it doesn't add up. invading cambodia is the right move when you are going into vietnam. >> continuing argument and keep making it because less than 1% of american families and american people are serving in the military in afghanistan. >> there you go. >> back to the draft. >> untouched. >> we need a draft. >> we'll come back the dr. aidan quinn. [ male announcer ] memb
. first, a news update. >> 17 past the hour. pakistan intelligence officials say 38 alleged militants have been killed by three suspected u.s. missiles in northwestern pakistan. this is in less than 12 hours. the attacks come two days after the obama administration suspended more than one-third of u.s. military aid to pakistan, about $800 million. the attacks indicate the white house has no intention of stopping the drone program. syria is accusing the u.s. a provocation after secretary of state hillary clinton said the president had lost legitimacy and was "not indispensable." this is one day after hamas attacked embassies. violent uprisings have been happening over the last four months as rebels tried to oust president assaad and and his family's 40-year rule. in the states, the gao says the government is making it more difficult to detect medicare fraud. in a report to be released today, they say the government systems for analyzing medicare and medicaid data are "inaccurate and underused." fraudulent claims are between $60 billion and $90 billion per year. we will hear more about that
afghanistan, pakistan. you're reading a couple pieces in the "new york times." now it's spreading to all of these different countries and one that really jumped off the page for me, drone attacks in somalia. >> joining us, jeremy scahill, on the cia secret sites in somalia, jeremy, the secret training programs and secret prisons out of somalia is part of your reporting there. how big a threat are these terrorist group there's? >> we should say first of all president obama campaigned on a promise to go up against these bush era policies declaring war on the world, running secret sites, torturing prisoners. deeply involved in an underground dungeon officially run by the somali national security agency, but their salaries are paid by the cia directly. in fact, one somali agent described thousand hairli ed ho and paid by u.s. agents and the u.s. is interrogating prisoners, including those rendered by the kenyan government, snatched off the streets in nairobi based on u.s. intelligence and taken to this secret prison and interrogated. it goes against the president's ordered he signed in janua
anyone who wants to own what i own. we can stay there if three things happen, pakistan becomes a different country, kari becomes a different man, and obama succeeds in doing nation- building in afghanistan. when i look at that, i say, "where is the ownership?" there is no town in afghanistan that our marines cannot take. is there any town in afghanistan that afghans can hold? i look for the ownership in what we hope for a decent outlook in afghanistan. >> but we do not want to get bogged down in an individual circumstances. the question still remains. i am trying to draw a parallel but not an analogy. the int still remains. we have to decide whether or not we will have a worldwide military presence in the sense of actual interference or trying to own situations, political situations, by military means. that this really affects every single thing have spoken about today. >> i agree there will be trade- offs and we will have to face up to that. there's no question. we are the tent pole that holds up the world. i am not sure how comfortable i would be in hawaii if china control th
now for panetta is to keep attacking al qaeda in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. >> now is the moment following what happened with bin laden to put maximum pressure on them. because i do believe that if we continue this effort that we can really cripple al qaeda. as a threat to this country. >> the u.s. has long said it believes al qaeda remains very interested in high-profile attacks and would like nothing better than to bring down a u.s. aircraft. apparently, osama bin laden was even talking about assembling a team of operatives. but of course, those navy s.e.a.l.s killed him in the compound before he could carry out the plan any further. >> general petraeus, i take it is getting ready to leave afghanistan, heading over to the cia? >> very soon. in fact, the change of command ceremony that will turn everything over in afghanistan to marine corps general john allen will take place monday morning in kabul. petraeus will get on a plane, come back to the united states, retire from years of service in the active duty army, and, in fact, in the coming weeks will do exactly that. take over
'll remember that a lot of documents were taken from osama bin laden's compound in pakistan. well, apparently, we're learning what those documents showed. and the information that we're getting now is that u.s. president barack obama and general david petraeus were actually specifically mentioned as targets for al qaeda in these documents and that the mode of attack was even talked about. it involved destroying their aircraft when they were in the region. now, this is a source that's familiar with these materials that were recovered from the compound. they are telling us now what these documents said. once again, when the navy s.e.a.l.s stormed that compound that you're looking at right now back on may 2nd with the hopes of taking out osama bin laden, the most wanted terrorist on the fbi's most wanted list, when they took those documents, retrieved those documents and those computers, documents now saying that general david petraeus and president barack obama were both targets of al qaeda. going into detail about when they were going to be in the region, how they were going to target their ai
of the wars in afghanistan and pakistan. >> still not getting serious. >> i went away from fuzzy. >> is that like jerry at trick math? >> yes. >> are you surprised they don't have a deal today? i actually really -- i mean, i really thought -- >> i would be shocked if they don't have a deal in the next two or three days. again, republican freshmen may have a big ideology difference with barack obama and his world view, and the divide is no greater than ronald reagan's was with tip o'neal in 1983 when they sat down, and they did a kneel. yes, you differ with barack obama and the democrats, but -- >> usually you are good at seeing somebody's angle. like you know what their angle was. what is the angle here? i don't get it. >> these republicans believe this is their only opportunity -- >> are they so stuck to the contract with the tea party they cannot think outside the box for the good of the country? seriously? >> can i finish? you asked a question and i need to finish. they understand one thing. >> what do they understand? >> they are dead right about this. this is their best chan
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)